User talk:Malinaccier/August 2009

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Malinaccier. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thanks for your response. I'm still in the process of removing external links and adding them as references when applicable. I thought this article needed a lot of clean up, so I just went ahead with it. After I'm done removing the external links, I'll go ahead and start added sources for the content. The majority of the content in the article is unsourced, or sourced to forums. I'll keep the forum sources since they're all posts official HTS posts. Thanks for your time! Netalarm 16:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I see you protected the redirect. I'd like to ask your opinion on something. Myself and at least one other user have been fixing the raw links to Ubuntu to add pipes to bypass the disambig page. I got SHOUTED at by User:SarekOfVulcan who has threatened to block me for doing this. But it is my understanding that when a link ends up at a dismbiguation page it should be fixed with a pipe to go to the correct article. Also, I can't see what harm it causes even if the article is moved in the future. So, is there really a problem with fixing these links? Would that admin be justified to block anyone over it? Yworo (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the move was made without any discussion at all, and hence it's premature to be repointing links when it's by no means sure that Ubuntu (operating system) will be staying there. If discussion establishes that repointing is the right thing to do, I have no problem with it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, that pointing at the disambiguation page is certainly wrong. And, no matter where the article on the OS is moved, Ubuntu (operating system) will surely not be simply deleted, but will be a redirect to the page on the OS. There is zero chance of there being a problem as a result of piping. Yworo (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You said that the page had been semi protected, but immediately after, an IP was able to vandalize the page as a first edit. Is there a problem with the protection? HarlandQPitt (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the need for protection, but I think it might be worth trying semi-protection first, since the "edit war" is actually an admin cleaning up after an anonymous but persistent editor. --Jlundell (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:List of Grand Slam tennis champions

Sorry, I had an emergency in real life that prevented me responding to you until now. Please note that the protected version of the page is not the endorsed or preferred version. If you want to change it, you need to form consensus with the other editor. Please work with him on the talk page of the article, or request a third opinion if consensus can not be reached. Thank you, Malinaccier (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Greetings,

Would you stop a minute and consider just how outrageous it is that a list of Grand Slam tennis champions would not have the names of, who else, the Grand Slam tennis champions. Fyun(click) is nothing more than an obstacle to sensibility. It is a huge shame that you froze the page as-is. There is zero percent chance of reaching consensus with him, as this has been debated for more than two years. I have plenty of outside sources to support the correct position here. According to the rules of Wikipedia, Wikipedia supports pluralism...that is, all multiple major points of view must be taken into consideration. For that, we could add an asterisk or color code to make Fyun(click) happy. But his excuse for deleting the names...tired of having to "work" on this...is UNacceptable. Wikipedia is voluntary. If he never contributes again, so be it. Others will edit. Why should this page be frozen/preserved, against NPOV, to make one obstinate person happy? I have demonstrated, time and again, that sources such as ESPN, the Encyclopedia Britannica, and the official websites all list the pre-1925 French Open champions. Based on Wiki policy, the only correct conclusion that can be reached is to include their names.Ryoung122 18:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I went to protect the Honda S2000 article and saw that you just protected/unprotected it. I'm wondering why you changed your mind, and if you'd like to answer the request at WP:RFPP. tedder (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh, you must've been posting at the same time :-) tedder (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Haha yeah. Were you going to protect the article? Malinaccier (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I was just going to look into it when I saw your prot/unprot. Based on the "nea" tag, I tend to agree. tedder (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Good. I was afraid you disagreed :). Malinaccier (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, nah, I just wanted more information. In general, that's one of the reasons I like hanging out at RFPP- it's somewhat subjective and there are no terribly wrong answers. See you around. tedder (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, good talking to you. Malinaccier (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry to bother, but the IP is back again this morning, this time having changed the redline and fuel cut-out RPM figures. Believe me, this is going to be an on-going problem week in and week out as it has been in the past. The editor always changes the figures, without refs, and does so persistently for weeks. The article is stable and attracting very few additions, it is becoming tiresome to keep monitoring and reverting. Since it is a dynamic IP it is not possible to get hold of this user. Please semi-protect the article for 6-12 months as you see fit. I would motivate for 12 months based on the stability and completeness of the article, and based on the fact that the IP has simply waited out the previous 2 month semi before starting again this week. I see the request has already been removed from WP:RFPP, do I need to list it again? Could you possibly list it and do the semi at the same time? Regards. Zunaid 09:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I see that Sara Jane Moore has been corrupted or vandalized, in some way that I do not understand, to a page that is blank except for the sentence "Override this function." I notice that you have lately protected the page for Lynette Fromme, where I noticed the bad link, so perhaps you know how to fix it. Thanks Wwheaton (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...I took a look at both articles, following the link to Moore's article and everything, but I'm not getting the error. Is this still happening to you? Malinaccier (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope--I saw it both on the Fromme page, and on the link above when I previewed my msg to you, but not now. Somebody must have got there first, I guess. Thanks — Wwheaton (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It may have been a random software problem because nobody edited the article. But I'm glad it works now. Happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I just got that error message when I visited my watchlist. It must be an error with the servers. Malinaccier (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I put most of the fact tags in to remind me to ref things when I return to the article - I've been busy moving house and few other things lately. I'll revert your removals of statements - nothing personal. --Philcha (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Since I could not easily find references for those statements I just removed them from the article. Malinaccier (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the help at WP:PERM/Rollback. Just so I know in the future, is this not considered a situation of sock puppetry, because it's between two projects? I didn't want to say it, but that's what ran through my head. :-/ Thanks for the help. wadester16 02:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not sock puppetry. Back before single user login it was common for users to have different account names on different projects (sometimes out of preference, sometimes because their username was already taken on the other project). Even on the same project a user can use another account of another name as long as they do not vote on the same issues or abuse it in other ways (User:Nick and User:NotASpy is one example, and I use an alternative account User:Malinaccier Public). Does this answer your question? Malinaccier (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea for the most part. I'm aware of doppelgänger accounts, I was concerned because it was obvious that this wasn't the case here. But it seems AGF prevails in this situation. Thanks for the help. wadester16 03:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Happy editing! :) Malinaccier (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to accomplish there, but it doesn't seem to have worked. AniMate^draw 16:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think what you need to do is restore the 2856 revisions currently at Ginny Weasley. I've tried to, but I guess firefox keeps freezing on me. AniMate^draw 16:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried to move the page, but for some reason it moved twice and gave a redirect for both pages. It froze IE for me too. I'll try again. Malinaccier (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Were you trying to merge page histories? AniMate^draw 16:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, just to do a move from Ginny Weasley (character) to Ginny Weasley. I got a weird DB error while doing it, and now it's turned out like this. Malinaccier (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. That's no good. Perhaps this is some sort of error related to the beta trial currently going on? AniMate^draw 16:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I fixed it...Malinaccier (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Good job. That was frustrating. Wikipedia freezing for no good reason is so annoying. AniMate^draw 17:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, agreeed. And I was using like a thousand other programs so I had lag on top of it :(. But all good now. Malinaccier (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(original message)

Thanks for notifying me that the GA review has started.

Back in early June I was concerned about the size of the plot summary too - that's why I left it for a couple of weeks, to see if I could look at it fresh eyes (then I got a date for my planned house-move,and that's taken a lot of my time). There's a guideline somewhere that the plot summary should be enough to support the commentary and this one, long though it is, doesn't cover enough to do that, becuase it omits plot strains that are not parts of the causal chain leading to the ending - omits the Dobby sub-plot and (except for a brief note) Nick's deathday party, both cited as examples of Harry's freedom from racism; handles Lockhart's self-promotion and "Lockhartmania" very cursorily, which also reduces its support for the "false identity" issue raised by one commentator; omits Harry withholding information from Dumbledore (about the voices that are portents of basilisk attacks, and which we later realise are Parseltongue). What I've left in is what is needed to explain how the characters get to the final scenes of the book. That's quite complicated - as a source I think I used in book 1 pointed out, books 1 & 2 are detective stories with typically complex plots and lots of red herrings. Book 3 might be simpler in plot summary terms, and I'm fairly confident that book 4 is. Another difficulty with the series is Rowling's habit of creating causal links within books, e.g. the diary is a horcrux, so the plot summary has to preserve the more important forward links. Your last plot summary is OK for a lead - except for loose ends like un-petrifying the basilisk's victims. But it highlights themes rather than literally summarising the story, and IMO comes perilously close to OR.

Re "If people wanted to read the details, they could actually go out and get the book", a plot summary with major holes would be more of a turn-off. Some of the literary crowd have an inappropriately academic outlook - their approach is understandable (but unlikeable) for set books that the students have to read or else they fail their course, but that does not work for popular fiction.

The link to real chronology (1992) is widely talked about. If we took it out, it would be reinstated within a month, probably at greater length and without a source. I don't fancy spending half my WP-time reverting such reinstatements - do you?

I'll have a coffee then look at the reviewer's comments. --Philcha (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(Reply here)

Thanks for your message about plot summary supporting commentary. The Potter books are very difficult to summarise because of the multiple levels of complexity - complex plots in individual books, and all building up to the series finale (she outlined the entire arc before writing book 1). See my response at Talk:Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets/GA1 - I really could summarise the Iliad more easily. --Philcha (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Malinaccier, thanks for your help in getting the artcile to GA, and in particular for your patience while we worked some rules for plot summaries for moderately long but plot-intensive works.

As I said in the review, I now feel that the "one size fits all" approach to plot summaries is wrong. How would you feel about getting involved in a discussion about this at the Talk page of whichever guideline is most relevant - and which would that be? --Philcha (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for the offer. Yes, but probably not starting until October or November - I have rather a lot on my plate in life 1.0 at the moment. dramatic (talk) 08:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any thoughts on Talk:Cato_June#Length. There are a couple of editors who have chopped up my articles in the past debating with me about detail.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a happy Birthday message to you, Malinaccier, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 12:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Malinaccier (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The WikiCup Newsletter

The WikiCup Newsletter Round IV, Issue 1 - August 16, 2009 Archive before | Archive after Pool leaders In this round of the WikiCup, the bottom four contestants of the top eight will be eliminated on September 30th, while the top four will continue with the same score for an additional month. On October 31, a winner will be announced. Top 4 Durova (370) Ottava Rima (281) Theleftorium (281) Sasata (200) Bottom 4 Candlewicke (88) Shoemaker's Holiday (81) Mitchazenia (73) Juliancolton (21) All scores are accurate as of 15:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC). Content Leaders As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most: Featured articles Ottava Rima (1) Featured lists Nobody Featured topics Nobody Featured pictures Durova (10) Featured sounds Nobody Featured portals Nobody Good topics Theleftorium (1) Good articles Ottava Rima (6) Did you know? items Sasata (9) In the news items Candlewicke (5) For Round 1 stats, see Newsletter 10. For Round 2 stats, see Newsletter 18. For Round 3 stats, see Newsletter 27. WikiCup At a Glance As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a Round 4 final total of: 1 Featured articles 0 Featured lists 0 Featured topics 12 Featured pictures 0 Featured sounds 0 Featured portal 1 Good topic 12 Good articles 21 Did you know? items 1 In the news items This combines with the Round 1, Round 2, and Round 3 totals to make a grand total of: 33 Featured articles 61 Featured lists 5 Featured topics 205 Featured pictures 25 Featured sounds 6 Featured portal 7 Good topics 279 Good articles 565 Did you know? items 114 In the news items Biggest Jumps The difference between each contestant's point total from last week, and their point total from this week are: Rank User LF TF D 1 Durova 0 370 370 2 Ottava Rima 0 281 281 3 Theleftorium 0 281 281 4 Sasata 0 200 200 LF = Last Week's score, TF = This Week's score, D = Difference between last week and this week's scores From the Judges Apologies for not getting a newsletter out before this, but all of the judges happened to be away at the same time. Very impressive start of the round. Only sixteen days in, and our top four are already completely above 200 points. By the way, this is light red, not pink! :P 'weburiedoursecretsinthegarden, iMatthew talk, and The Helpful One If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.

Delivered by –Juliancolton | ^Talk at 15:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been two months and no one has bothered to talk about the disputes in the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.204.230 (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done Sorry I didn't get your message. Please place messages at the bottom of talk pages :). Malinaccier (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you SO much. Hopefully Daymee will stop acting like a little child. He already proved that Wesker is dead so he should be contempt. Sorry about not placing the message at the bottom of the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.139.238 (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you had edti protected Tamil Eelam page. I saw one user, Pearll's sun had undone many revisions based on current discussions among many in the discussion page just before you free this. Edits he had undone and and are being discussed in talk page include:

1. Not mentioning of unrecognized status of Tamil Eelam compared to similar other articles State of Palestine, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Somaliland,Transnistria, Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, South Ossetia). Instead putting up a lay out misleading the reader to think it is an exsisting state. 2. Inclusion of main inforbox, flag and a map based on pure researches of the editor or unverifiable sources (e.g. TamilNet) against WP:VERIFY.

Please look into this and reverse this reverting of dozens of revisons to an early revision.

--Ranilb5 (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Ranil

Hi, sorry for getting to this late. Please try to discuss the edits on the talk page of the article and try to reach consensus. If consensus cannot be reached, please try dispute resolution. Thanks! :) Malinaccier (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There was an edit war at Boys Over Flowers over whether or not a certain television show was an adaptation of the story, and whether to include mention of the show in the article. I made numerous requests of the two people who edited on one side of the edit war to join us at Talk. One editor made one comment, over a week ago. My last request for their involvement was six days ago: they have not returned to Talk, but have edited elsewhere. The editor who reverted most vigorously has not come to the Talk page at all: I made my last request at their Talk page nine days ago, yet they have edited elsewhere. It seems that these editors have abandoned their positions in the discussion. Meanwhile, the remaining two editors have come to a consensus. Therefore, I request unprotection of Boys Over Flowers. Whatever404 (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, the page is unprotected. Malinaccier (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dendodge 4. Just wanted to let you know, since you're his former admin coach. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Earlier today you unprotected the above page. I have just reverted three suspicious edits made by one of the users involved in the previous edit war. Their edit summary mentioned something about meteorites, however this did not match their actual edits, which were to remove any mention of China from the article. I just thought I would let you know this. -- role^player 22:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Malinaccier. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.